Case: CENTRAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC v. Ingram Class Notes Court / Date: Judge: Facts: Issue: Holding: Procedural History: Rule: Rationale: SpCt of TN (1984) Drowota D.s were employed by CAB and were asked to sign non-competition covenants weeks after their original hire date. Years later they left CAB and started a company in direct competition with CAB. CAB brought action against the former employees in tort and for breach of noncompetition covenants. The Equity Court, Davidson County, Robert S. Brandt, Chancellor, found that the noncompetition covenants were unreasonably broad, but modified the restrictions and enforced them as modified, and employees appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed on issue of the covenants but affirmed

This preview
has intentionally blurred sections.
Sign up to view the full version.

This is the end of the preview. Sign up
to
access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: employees' liability in tort, and remanded for reconsideration of damages. 1) Whether future employment of an at-will employee constitutes consideration for a non-competition covenant. 2) Whether judicial modification and enforcement of the covenants as modified as to time, area, and customer restrictions was proper, and provision that employees pay all costs of enforcing the covenants, including reasonable attorney fees, was enforceable. 1) A covenant signed prior to, at the time of hire, or shortly thereafter is part of the original agreement, and supported by adequate consideration. 2) Yes 1) Ramsey v. Mutual Supply Co. 2) Ct. of Appeals Judgement reversed Chancellors Judgement Affirmed...
View Full
Document